People are free to ignore or delete this thread.

Aren't all Christians lunatics? I find it basically offensive that I walk into an hotel room and find this stupid book of the bible in the room.

This only really happens in america where people seem to be stupid enough to buy into all of this; People who believe in a virgin birth more than they do evolution.

I even read on this very forum that a person did not believe in multiple universes because the bible did not mention such a thing.

I feel certain enough that most christians (having been brought up as one) are complete idiots. They seem absolute certain that this bible is the truth. Religion so far seems to not want to go forward. Religion is already set in stone.

Well that is my opinion people. I feel like I am being opressed as a result of religion. I would like to hear why you think your way of life is the way life actually is. I dare you to even try to state the way the universe and humanity is without even being so subjective.

I don't have a way with words people. But my mind is made up.

Aren't all Christians lunatics?
they are hypnotized=brainwashed, unable to think reasonably,logicaly..

This only really happens in america where people seem to be stupid enough to buy into all of this; People who believe in a virgin birth more than they do evolution
you see ,the religion stops the thinking mind
in religion to question is heresy
in science to question is required

I feel certain enough that most christians (having been brought up as one) are complete idiots. They seem absolute certain that this bible is the truth. Religion so far seems to not want to go forward. Religion is already set in stone.
sad but true,
Ive heard that the reason nature designed many people to be followers able to be controled mentaly is for the greater good of the human tribe
www.atheists.org/Atheism/music.html

Well that is my opinion people. I feel like I am being opressed as a result of religion.
yes you are.. :(

As a student of anthropology and archaeology, I find religious texts such as the christian bible and it's components (the Pentateuch, Septuagint, J-document, P-document, etc.) fascinating. They can tell us much about the lifestyles and cultures of the period in the Near East and they can also give us insights into what people of the period felt was important with regard to values, taboos, rituals, etc.

We can even get some wisdom from texts like the bible that are relevant in modernity, though, like all myths and legends, we can't take them literally. Of course there was no virgin birth (did Jesus have only 23 chromosomes?; not to mention that the virgin birth motif was in use long before judaic mythology adopted it), of course a flood didn't engulf the entire Earth; of course the Red Sea didn't part to allow Moses and his tribe to pass; of course Adam and Eve weren't actual people; etc. But each of these stories tells us much about the people of the period.

Aren't all Christians lunatics? I find it basically offensive that I walk into an hotel room and find this stupid book of the bible in the room.
Why are all believers in a monotheistic God lunatics? What grounds have you got for such an argument? The creationist theory/belief that God made man is as valid a concept as the Darwinian theory of evolution. Not sure why you find it "offensive" to find a bible, but I believe it is a bit biased in that it does not offer any books of the other 2 major Semetic religions [Judaism and Islam]. I've never heard of anyone finding a copy of the Tanakh or Qu'ran being found in a hotel, which I believe is unfair to practicioners of other religions. [Also, why limit it to Semetic religion at all? Shouldn't all people be catered for? Perhaps you are right in supposing there should be no religious books etc in hotel rooms

This only really happens in america where people seem to be stupid enough to buy into all of this; People who believe in a virgin birth more than they do evolution.
Again, it can be asked, why is the concept of evolution more valid than say a virgin birth or belief in a being such as God?
I even read on this very forum that a person did not believe in multiple universes because the bible did not mention such a thing.
That is their belief, just as it is your belief [or may very well be] that there is such thing as multiple universes, and that God doesn't exist.
I feel certain enough that most christians (having been brought up as one) are complete idiots. They seem absolute certain that this bible is the truth. Religion so far seems to not want to go forward. Religion is already set in stone.
Why do you tie Christiainity in so strongly with the word religion out of curiosity? Also, calling all Christians idiots makes you seem somewhat of a biggot. Just because you don't believe in God does not mean that others who do are idiots simply because they do not share your views on life or the universe. And I know plenty of Christians [and Muslims for that matters] who are interested in the fields of Science and are pursuing careers paths in the lines of Engineering etc, which in itself denotes a "want to go forward".

Well that is my opinion people. I feel like I am being opressed as a result of religion. I would like to hear why you think your way of life is the way life actually is. I dare you to even try to state the way the universe and humanity is without even being so subjective.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but it's the way in which they put that opinion forward that shows what type of person they are. I find it somewhat perplexing that you chose to challange "religion" yet your primary focus was on Christianity.

I don't have a way with words people. But my mind is made up.
I didn't find your post too badly worded.

Not necessarily complete idiots, but the ones that aren't are lacking all forms of integrity. They bend the bible to fit reason(as opposed ot the lunatic idea of bending reason to fit the bible), completely distorting it's original, irrational context.

I do not understand the bible in the hotel idea. Why shouldn't the Koran be there, or Atlas Shrugged, or The Origin of Species? They do have a mormon bible though-very interesting. Blew my mind. Still pointless.

Multiple Universes isn't a good way to bring this up, as there is absolutely no(or close to no) way of proving this. Once the theory of multiple universes was created, we then had millions of theories, each equally valid, based upon this one theory. But, disbelieving it because of the bible is pointless.

How did my social studies teacher put the church? When the catholic church(this is refering to the time just prior to Martin Luther) said jump, you would ask how high. Any other question(such as merely, why?) would get you shot/inquistioned. However, any form of protestant church is getting that way. They say jump, you ask how high.

The futility of faith-All religion is based on faith, since that is what is required to believe God acts in our universe. But, what if the Islamic man has more faith in Allah(sorry, I guess that is Muslim) than the Christian has in God? Does he become right? What makes him wrong?

The futility of faith-All religion is based on faith, since that is what is required to believe God acts in our universe. But, what if the Islamic man has more faith in Allah(sorry, I guess that is Muslim) than the Christian has in God? Does he become right? What makes him wrong?
Allah is the God of all Islamic followers [to the best of my knowledge]. Even if its not the exact same name, the God is the same for Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Yahweh = Allah = God

To be a true believer, one must have 100% faith, therefor, the above question can be answered in two obvious ways [Perhaps 3]

The first is that if the Islamic man has more faith than the Christian man, and the Islamic man has 100% faith/belief in his God, then he is technically more "correct" than the Christian man, because without 100% faith in God, the Christian man is not a true believer in God, the Islamic man on the other hand beleives in and knows God. On the other hand, if the Islamic man believes in God more than the Christian man, but not 100%, then their belief is to an extent equally as valid, because they are not believed to be true believers since there is doubt in their mind as the existance of God/Allah and as such their belief is rendered somewhat invalid until they achieve true belief or faith in the Lord. But in another way, since the Islamic man has more faith, it means he is closer at that point in time to knowing the full truth about God in a way, and that means that he is partially makes him more "right".


Regards,
WMA

Allah is the God of all Islamic followers [to the best of my knowledge]. Even if its not the exact same name, the God is the same for Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Yahweh = Allah = God

All evangelical Christians would disagree with you on that statement.

Allah has no son. Christian God is trinity. A good way to insult Christians is to tell them they worship the same God as Muslims do.

The creationist theory/belief that God made man is as valid a concept as the Darwinian theory of evolution. [...] Again, it can be asked, why is the concept of evolution more valid than say a virgin birth or belief in a being such as God?

The theories of evolution can be tested and validated. The mythologies of creation and vigin birth are both untestable. Both are christian myths (originating in the early Judaic texts) that are borrowed from other, earlier cultures and aren't even original.

Evolution is a fact. The mechanisms that drive it are explained in theory. But please, let this thread not become a evolution -vs- creation thread. There are several of those that exist already and, in each, the creation proponents have always failed to demonstrate any validity to the myth.

Virgin birth is a myth. Pure and simple. If a real person did exist named Jesus and if Joseph and Mary also existed and they claimed Mary was a virgin, then she was lying. Perhaps she was raped by a Roman soldier or Joseph sowed his seed before planting season... both good reasons to lie in order to avoid being stoned to death. But it's more likely (assuming that Jesus actually existed) that later followers of the cult leader applied the Immaculate Conception motif in an attempt to increase credibility.

Evolution is a fact. The mechanisms that drive it are explained in theory. But please, let this thread not become a evolution -vs- creation thread. There are several of those that exist already and, in each, the creation proponents have always failed to demonstrate any validity to the myth.
Theory: abstract thought, Speculation
Fact: the quality of being actual, Actuality
Something cannot be actual if the "mechanisms that drive it are explained" by speculation. ;)


Regards,
WMA

Evolution occurs and has occurred in the past. The evidence is clear. The mechanisms that drive evolution are theoretical, but many are quite testable. Moreover, your definition of "theory" is flawed in that it isn't the scientific definition implied when one combines "theory" with "evolution." In that sense, a theory is a set of tested hypotheses that have, thus far, held up.

I realize that you are probably not educated in the sciences, as evident by your assumption that a myth and a theory are equally valid, however, this is all very basic high school-level stuff.

Again, lets not make this into a creation-evolution thread.

You'd prefer rather to turn it into a veiled flame thread instead?
I'm aware of what a theory is, and fyi I am in fact educated in the Sciences, and was placed in the yaer ahead of me Physics class for Year 12. Please don't continue to turn this thread into a veiled flame, I have made no such attempt at flamign you and ask that you show me the same curtesy in return. Thank you.


Regards,
WMA

You'd prefer rather to turn it into a veiled flame thread instead?
I'm aware of what a theory is, and fyi I am in fact educated in the Sciences, and was placed in the yaer ahead of me Physics class for Year 12. Please don't continue to turn this thread into a veiled flame, I have made no such attempt at flamign you and ask that you show me the same curtesy in return. Thank you.


Regards,
WMA

WMA, look past how you feel about SkinWalker's 'flames. It's the
what he asserted a theory is that's imporant and consequentially
correct.

I'd say that the thread title, "Isn't religion a bit stupid?," isn't that veiled. Also, I wasn't "flaming" you, I was making an assumption that your willingness to equate the validity of a myth to that of a scientific theory as being indicative of a lack of science education. That you actually do have some education (high school?) in science and still consider biblical mythology as valid as science says something different alltogether.

But staying on topic, religion is a bit stupid when an education is obtained. This isn't a slight on the cultures and beliefs of cultures of the world, but rather a criticism of those that claim to be educated yet cling to the superstition and mythology of their religious doctrines and dogmas. To do so requires that portions of empirical data be discarded in favor of myth. Certainly a stupid thing for an "educated" person to do.

For those that lack education, however, religion makes perfect sense. It provides direction and explanation of the universe where knowledge is lacking in empirical observations of science. Those that haven't studied biology, geology, chemistry, etc. haven't the working knowledge of the mechanisms at play or why science can state with empiricism that the planet is approx. 4.5 billion years old instead of a mere 6,000.

Religion as a whole, however, has outlived its usefulness in modern Western societies. Proper education can provide necessary explanations for life as we know it -not [i]complete explanations (yet)- but certainly more effectively than religion. Moreover, secular governments do a better job of providing rules and guidelines for society as well as consequences for deviants: stoning to death unruly children or those that work on Sunday is no longer necessary. In societies where the largest polities are chiefdoms or bands, rules and regulations necessarily had to be created and enforced by religious authority, but the city-state and the nation-state concept eliminates the need for religion in this sense.

The only real purpose religion can actually serve in modernity appears to be a method of offering hope to those that worry over their morality. What happens when we die? Where does the soul go? Does the soul exist? ecetera.

I must say, if I had been sober at the time I posted this it would have been worded differently. Americans being 'stupid enough' to buy into it wasn't exactly what I meant because I know that firstly, Americans are not stupid and secondly I was referring mostly to the bible belt states where people don't seem all that enlightened as a result of their strong religious views.

I still stand by the thread title though, as a passing opinion on the subject. Christianity in particular seems to be making the headlines a lot recently given debates on the future of science and biotechnology, and their only argument to all of this is: "You can't play God". Which I find a bit funny because I don't see what say religion should have in the future of science and politics?

Oh, and on evolution - Perhaps skeptics would be happy shitting out of their mouths because that's what would happen if the wonder of evolution didn't give us an anus.

I have to say (as an atheist myself) that the opening post was needlessly inflammatory. Some of the greatest minds in humanity's existence (most of them, in fact) have been sincere religious believers. You can't judge all religious belief by the fundies and Creationists who post here. I think the reaction - across all faiths - to the recent death of the Pope shows that, however baseless in terms of actual evidence, religious belief is certainly important to a lot of people. I also echo SkinWalker's personal fascination for the Bible and its origins as well as its philosophical and moral wisdom.

The first is that if the Islamic man has more faith than the Christian man, and the Islamic man has 100% faith/belief in his God, then he is technically more "correct" than the Christian man, because without 100% faith in God, the Christian man is not a true believer in God, the Islamic man on the other hand beleives in and knows God. On the other hand, if the Islamic man believes in God more than the Christian man, but not 100%, then their belief is to an extent equally as valid, because they are not believed to be true believers since there is doubt in their mind as the existance of God/Allah and as such their belief is rendered somewhat invalid until they achieve true belief or faith in the Lord. But in another way, since the Islamic man has more faith, it means he is closer at that point in time to knowing the full truth about God in a way, and that means that he is partially makes him more "right".Phooey. And badly written phooey at that. There is no more validity to the statement "The Islamic man has 100% faith in God and the Christian man does not therefore the Islamic man is technicall more 'right'" than there is in the statement "The Christian man has 100% faith in God and the Islamic man does not therefore the Christian man is technicall more 'right'."

Is religion a bit stupid?

Okay, at the core of (most) religious beliefs is the unprovable.
So does believing in the unprovable make someone stupid? Quite possibly.
But while the required beliefs can be deemed "stupid", the purpose of religion, and the benefits for the individual, mean that it isn't necessarily a stupid concept.

In my experience religion is more than just the beliefs.
Religion is also about community, about mutual support, and about having somewhere to turn when needed.
Most religious people, in my experience, DO NOT EVEN QUESTION the beliefs they hold, almost as if it is unimportant to what else religion offers them.
It gives them purpose, it gives them hope, it gives them things that they, as individuals, may not be able to get without religion.

Okay, us atheists are able to do just as well, or maybe better, without the need for religion, or without the need to believe in (and worship) some unprovable "thing".

But let's not start calling religion "stupid".
Christianity, for example, is fairly unobtrusive in people's lives other than the need to believe in a few unprovable things and to live a "Christian life" - which generally equates to obeying the laws of society plus a few others (not coveting thy neighbours sexy nympho wife, for example :D)
Some require the believer to go to church regularly.
But other than that it's not a big deal.

And in return that person gets so much peace of mind, hope, support etc.


No, religion isn't all that stupid.
We unreligious have merely have seen past the myths and realised we don't need it.
The religious generally do.

The stupidity of religion comes when it causes people to press their beliefs on other people.

Well first i wuld like to say that not all monothesits are illogical brainwashed people that cant reason or do science. There are many christians who opened the way to modern thinking in philosophy, for example Kant, Augustine and Aquinas, who all of you have to say were brilliant thinkers.
Then there are hundreds of christians who are scientists, one of them is currently the head of CSIRO in australia. Now i wont go on with the list of names but I will say that yes religious ppl can think logically and are not all brainwashed idiots, for now I will close with a qoute from Einstien
Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame
Pls ask as many questions as you want, and I will try to answer them to the best of my ability
Bye
Jako

Most common people fear to question what they have been brought on since childhood which might reveil weacknesses, which ironically they do not know if they exist or not.

Other people take things for granted and do not bother themselves with this discussion, they tend to live on, not that they are stupid, but they don't want to think about it. These people view themselves as part of a community interacting, they deal with their lives and work while somebody's elses work is to deal with the religious issue (priests, imams, monks, etc).

But intrestingly enough, the concept of beleiving in the unprooven can not be considered stupidity, like evolution scientifically can not be prooven and it is still debatable in the scientific community till this day, but some beleive it, creation is likewise another example of unprooven theories. Every body beleives in something, and nobody uses proofes all the time even so-called "non-beleivers".

But, I'd like to mention that not all religions consider using thought as being heretical, as a muslim I can tell you, yes some sects do consider it heretical like Salafis and Sufis, but other like the mu'tazilis and shi'tes do not. I do beleive that similar distinctions exist in other religions........... but generalizing the fact on all religions as if they are all the same is a bit prejudiced and harsh.

May we all be shown the Truth.
Salam.

Aren't all Christians lunatics? ... I even read on this very forum that a person did not believe in multiple universes because the bible did not mention such a thing.

Not all Christians are lunatics. What <i>is</i> lunacy is backing up your statement about a vast group of people with an vague allusion to one person on an internet forum.

I feel certain enough that most christians (having been brought up as one) are complete idiots.

So, why do you think this? You only have two reasons, as far as I can tell.

this bible is the truth.

You don't acknowledge that a large portion of Christians do not interpret the Bible literally. It is obvious that most stories in the OT are oral tradition and that the myths used for genesis are just creation stories.
Yet, that's not really the core of the Bible. The NT's message -- its moral structure centered around love and humility -- what beef do you have with that?

Religion so far seems to not want to go forward.

How does this indicate idiocy? Not all progress is beneficial.

Faith is the sacrifice in which God most delights, the sacrifice of the intellect.

All evangelical Christians would disagree with you on that statement.

Allah has no son. Christian God is trinity. A good way to insult Christians is to tell them they worship the same God as Muslims do.

interesting point.. but the Jewish god has no son either, neither do the jews believe in the trinity.. yet they are said to believe in the same GOD.. incidentaly christians and muslims in the lands where jesus preached the gospel call GOD "ALLAH"

But intrestingly enough, the concept of beleiving in the unprooven can not be considered stupidity, like evolution scientifically can not be prooven and it is still debatable in the scientific community till this day, but some beleive it, creation is likewise another example of unprooven theories. Every body beleives in something, and nobody uses proofes all the time even so-called "non-beleivers".

evolution is a Fact, a theory is How it happens,we dont believe it we KNOW it happens,big difference.
here you go
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

" Isn't religion a bit stupid?"

No. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and some others are. By no means EVERY religion. check out "Eastern Philosophy"

Originally posted by scorpius

"evolution is a Fact, a theory is How it happens,we dont believe it we KNOW it happens,big difference.
here you go"

A fact! Boy, I'm a biochemist and know about it,even the most extreme defender of the theory can not claim it to be fact, but if your not convinced check this site:

http://www.harunyahya.com/c_refutation_darwinism.php

Hope to have helped in Clearing the picture.

Originally posted by Sushupti

"No. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and some others are. By no means EVERY religion. check out "Eastern Philosophy""

On what bases is your claim, are you someone who happens to know about all the three religions and all their sects?......... sorry!! I doubt you have such knowledge in these religions, no body can make such a claim.

I already did give an example on Islamic sects which clearly you did not read. And to move along with your game, in what sense is "Eastern philosophy not stupid" that is if we were to claim that the statement is correct (which is totaly wrong)?

Here is a question to begin with: What proof has Eastern philosophy on the existance of multiple gods? What is their proof on the existance ofincarnation?

You, also, are a beleiver; hence, according to the first post on the threed, your religious thought is also condemmed of some degree of stupidity (which I beleive he is totaly mistaken about it).

May we all be shown the Truth.
Salam.

Is religion stupid?
Yes. It was created in a time when humans didn't know about the world around them. Eventually, people actually started to believe the bullshit that sprung from thier mouths.
This led to organized religion.

Evolution is the most viable theory to explain life, and this is why it is accepted in (almost) every school system as a textbook standard lesson.

On what bases is your claim, are you someone who happens to know about all the three religions and all their sects?......... sorry!! I doubt you have such knowledge in these religions, no body can make such a claim.

I can and I will. I do in fact know about these three religions. Sects and specifics are of course a different matter, but I'm familiar with the core of all three, yes. I used to think they were interesting... till I read enough, that is :)

And my 'problem' with the big three is exactly at that very core, the 'givens,' including some things all three agree on (GASP!).

I already did give an example on Islamic sects which clearly you did not read. And to move along with your game, in what sense is "Eastern philosophy not stupid" that is if we were to claim that the statement is correct (which is totaly wrong)?

I will make sure I read it eventually, but in case you mean sufis, I do think they're pretty cool. That's the twist I guess. I'm sure many sects and whatnots have some very cool facets, I don't argue that. The core, however, is in my eyes rotten and stupid. This sounds a lot like an offense, but I wish it didn't. I assure you, for example, that I'm WAY less prejudiced against Islam than a lot of the people arguing FOR abrahamic religions. There's more I like about it than the others, and it's the only one I even consider studying further, for the details and variations still untainted by the core.

As for my defense of the east, they don't have the things I most despise about abrahamics... for example, an idiot god who desperately needs groupies. And the blatant disregard for laws like cause and effect. Again this may sound a bit harsh, please try not to take it as such. My ideas may sound a bit radical, but i'm not a radical person myself.

Basically, Eastern philosophies are more in line with wisdom, westerners like to simply submit to something they can't see because they were told to. This, to me, is one of the best examples of Pure Stupidity.

Of course, there are variations on the theme, like for example bhakti yogis... but I prefer to simply ignore them.

Here is a question to begin with: What proof has Eastern philosophy on the existance of multiple gods? What is their proof on the existance ofincarnation?

No proof, but that's the religion part, I'm defending the philosophy. The concept of reincarnation makes infinitely more sense than anything non-atheist out there, though, I must say.

At any rate, they're less about simply believing, more about finding out for yourself. It's what meditation is.

You, also, are a beleiver; hence, according to the first post on the threed, your religious thought is also condemmed of some degree of stupidity (which I beleive he is totaly mistaken about it).

May we all be shown the Truth.
Salam.

I am in fact not a believer, I'm sorry I gave you that impression. I'm not in any way asian, either, for the record. Brazillian of 100% european descent, though I wouldn't put it past some of those farther back europeans to have some arab in them, Ottoman Empire and all...

This means that by his definition of stupid, I'm not even slightly :)

Your signature, however, I wholeheartedly agree with!

May we all be shown the Truth.
As-Salaam-Alaikum,
Om Shanti Om.

[EDIT: I see on your profile you're from Lebanon! I love Lebanon, intuitively, but know sadly little about it... I would appreciate it if you could direct me to some reading material]

"Faith is the sacrifice in which God most delights, the sacrifice of the intellect. "

Exactly.

God got very angry when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge.

Doesn't it occur to people that anyone writing a book about God, where he punished his children for eating from the tree of knowledge, must be anti-knowledge, and extremely oppressive?

This is why we need the Humanist Revolution more than ever.
To me, truth is the divine element in our universe.

In my opinion religion is childish.

If you met an adult who believed in Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Toothfairy, wouldn't you be a bit surprised?
Yet people believe in god for the same reasons: because they want to, because it makes life seem nicer, because they feel they need to.

A good portion of society has recognised science. It is time for the rest to grow up as well.

This might be painful for a couple of generations, but then we will be more mature as a human race.

Hi
looks like everyone are givong just opinions but no porrf any statements. Yes I am a Christian, and I do belive there is a God, but I also know you cant prove God's existance, and on the other hand you cant disporve it either. In basically comes down to you yourself have to choose which bias is the best bias to be biased with.
My fisrt question is how did everything come into existance? How did matter, energy, and information as we know it appear? From cosmology (astronomical not philosphical) we can, no we must conclude that the universe had a beginning. We also get taught matter cannot be created nor destroyed, but only converted into energy and back from energy to matter (Einstein's equivalncy eqaution). Even Steven Hawking said in the ending of his book that cosmologically there has to be a creator, but he chooses not to allow that thought even to enter into his mind because then he must consider that creator or God. The late Steven J Gould said somthing very similar when he refered to evolution, say its not science vs religion but rather the religion of materliasim vs christianity.
I'll contstruck a more loigal argument next time
its been interisting to read all of this
thankx soo much
jako

Evolution is the most viable theory to explain life, and this is why it is accepted in

Still, it doesn't contradict the idea of some kind of creator/intelligence that created all. It still doesn't explain the cause(I'm not talking about afterlife/heaven/hell!). In fact, maybe science will never be able to. That may be because it relies on the physical life, when in fact a creator cannot be physical because then it would mean that something created It. I'm just speculating here. I don't take comfort in the Idea of a God, or fear death. By observing life, one is always likely to come up with such conclusion that a creator made the universe. And obviously he can not be of matter.. That doesn't help... Again, lets put all the mythological context affiliated with God aside for a sec.

I want to see what the replies are to psycho's post. What is in the background of space? Maybe by hypothesizing we may figure out a reasonable explanation.

I find the "there had to be a creator!" argument extremely annoying and dumb, due to the old "well then who created god?" problem. I also think it's thouroughly irrelevant, and can have no practical effect in our life.


The christian god specifically, is just a retarded idea that doens't make a single droplet of sense, of course... this isn't avery productive thing to say, I realize, but there's nothing i would dread more than someone thinking any word of mine is in anyway defending that retarded, stupid invention and/or sick dumb asshole.

[I find it important to put emphasis to the fact that I support him in no way... And it's an insult to the idea, not the misguided souls who believe it. Keeping with the godwin rule, I'm sure many nazis truly believed they were doing good.]

Why can't people just sit on the fence?

Thats what I do. I am actually pretty 50/50 on wether the universe was 'created' by some form of intelligence OR it could've just been some natural occurrence which is part of a grand scheme of things.

This is why I find religion rather sickening, it claims to know all of these things about our 'god' but in fact, no religion on Earth is close to knowing a single bit of information about this creator.

Worship God? What for? Maybe he ain't that nice of a guy. In fact shouldn't we all be a little pissed off at him for creating a place where life is possible then giving us no idea what it is all about?

If I could meet 'God', I wouldn't fall to my knees and pray, I would ask him was the f*** he thought he was playing at!

But of course, there is always the comforting reality that we are REAL and that the place we lived in was not created by intelligence. Which if true, we should all just walk around shrugging.

is religion stupid.
could it be called anything else, no.
would you say that anybody who actuelly believe's in santa claus is rational, no.
so why would anybody think, believing in a god, would be any less irrational.
if it effects the five sense, and has a solid base it's believable otherwise it's not.

well, just a quick reply to the anti there has to be a creator. We live in a time based universe cause and effect (or rather the law of non-contradiction as i would have explained if i had time to but unfortunately i have to go to university right now) plays a part in our universe. For someone infinte which there has to be if we follow the lwas of cause and effect to it logical conclusion, these laws will no longer apply, if we make just 1 assumtion that this Creator is outside time. So either there exista and infinitely big and powerfull cause, or there exists a Cause which is outside time.

Still, it doesn't contradict the idea of some kind of creator/intelligence that created all. It still doesn't explain the cause(I'm not talking about afterlife/heaven/hell!). In fact, maybe science will never be able to. That may be because it relies on the physical life, when in fact a creator cannot be physical because then it would mean that something created It. I'm just speculating here. I don't take comfort in the Idea of a God, or fear death. By observing life, one is always likely to come up with such conclusion that a creator made the universe. And obviously he can not be of matter.. That doesn't help... Again, lets put all the mythological context affiliated with God aside for a sec.
The only 'creator' theories that make an inkling of sense are shit from Videogames (Starcraft & Halo) and from Aztec/Incan/Indian legend, interestingly enough.
Quezacotl. Khala. Forerunner. Whatever you want to call 'em, they are probably the same thing.

well, just a quick reply to the anti there has to be a creator. [...] For someone infinite which there has to be if we follow the laws of cause and effect to it logical conclusion, these laws will no longer apply, if we make just 1 assumtion that this Creator is outside time.

Why must the universe need a creator? Maybe it was always here. If there can exist a creator, then there must exist a creator's creator (and, thus, multiple gods -making polytheism more logical than monotheism) unless this alleged creator always existed. If that can be possible, then so can the possibility that a universe always existed.

Therefore, we have no need for a creator in a universe that always existed. People have no problem imagining infinity when it deals with going forward in time. Why, then, cannot time be infinitely backward?

If there is a god/creator, it certainly isn't the anthropomorphic deity that is produced by Judeo-Christian mythology. Mostly since biblical record is so fraught with contradictions and fallacies as well as outright fabrications and plagerisms of other cultures.

BTW, Quetzalcoatl isn't a god of creation - he was the son of Ometecutli and Omecihuatl (the god and goddess of duality) who created all life.

I'm sure the universe has always existed (although it doesn't really exist) Existence (universe/everything) having a beginning or an end, doesn't make sense. There cannot be a first cause.. Time cannot start somewhere in time, neither can the universe. Time and the universe are the same thing, hence you cannot explain the universe within time.

No logical human can say that time exists by itself.. it is merely a sensation of the mind. And this is true for the sensation of matter also. Quantum physics states that matter comes from mind. If it is true in the "micro world", then it is true for the macro world also.

Physicists only believe in what is observed, created. They can never believe in the creator, the observer. If there is no "observer" (consciousness), there is no universe. To separate the observed from the observer is to put an end to all logic. The LOGIC discovered here is the manifestation of the evident identity of natures between our reason and matter.

A human can not be conscious of something outside his consciuosness, because everything is inside his consciousness, inside his mind. If I am conscious of something, it is proof that it is part of my consciousness. So, all apparent material reality is spiritual. And this goes without saying, because everything we call matter is a sensation: of resistance, of impenetrability, of density, of inertia; and this sensation is purely mental. Nothing, ever, has been able to prove the existence of the most minute morsel of matter.

We've known this ever since HERMES Trismegistos ("the universe is mental"), and long before, and it has been confirmed by many philosophers since DESCARTES.

But physicists are not yet ready to accept anything that calls into question the very foundations of their science. Because, if we take note of Heisenberg, we realize that if we do Physics (which consists in considering the observed world as being " external "), we cannot understand anything about the universe: have you ever seen a cause?

We cannot find the cause by observing effects. What is visible is the result of a cause. There is no visible cause.

If there is a god/creator, it certainly isn't the anthropomorphic deity that is produced by Judeo-Christian mythology.

The God of the Bible makes himself visible through all the things in the universe, which are his bodies.

Mostly since biblical record is so fraught with contradictions and fallacies as well as outright fabrications and plagerisms of other cultures.

It only seems so because they speak of the same things. They can't just invent new things that never happened. Like the flood for instance, sumerians weren't the only ones who wrote about that event, of course not.

Why must the universe need a creator? Maybe it was always here. If there can exist a creator, then there must exist a creator's creator (and, thus, multiple gods -making polytheism more logical than monotheism) unless this alleged creator always existed. If that can be possible, then so can the possibility that a universe always existed.

Therefore, we have no need for a creator in a universe that always existed. People have no problem imagining infinity when it deals with going forward in time. Why, then, cannot time be infinitely backward?

If there is a god/creator, it certainly isn't the anthropomorphic deity that is produced by Judeo-Christian mythology. Mostly since biblical record is so fraught with contradictions and fallacies as well as outright fabrications and plagerisms of other cultures.

That's what I was tryign to get at with my post; pardon my ineloquence.


Yorda: The God of the Bible makes himself visible through all the things in the universe, which are his bodies.

Sure doesn't sound like the YHVH I know.. you're mixing in some of that hermetic philosophy, which actually makes sense, with your irrational beliefs :)

BTW, Quetzalcoatl isn't a god of creation - he was the son of Ometecutli and Omecihuatl (the god and goddess of duality) who created all life.
Interesting thing about that:
An aztec legend details Ol' Quetz crashing into a lake while riding a flaming cloud.
Doesn't this sound a bit like a damaged alien spacecraft crashing into a lake.
Also, some tales from India detail an earth-bound war between gods that sounds an awful lot like spacecraft blasting each other with lasers. I saw it on history channel.
Very strange, but interestingly tangible.

Quetzalcoatl was a Teotihuacan god adopted by the Aztecs and Toltecs. Perhaps the Teotihuacanoes adopted it from elsewhere. But it was a war god or god of power and conquest and was depicted as a "feathered serpent," as visitors to the Teotihuacan Valley in Mexico can see on one of the most enigmatic pyramids in Mesoamerica. In this pyramid are the sacrifices of over 200 warriors, probably for the structure's dedication or re-dedication.

Why is this bit of Mesoamerican history on-topic? Because we can see first-hand and with an objective eye the "stupidity" of religion. I use that term in quotes since I don't actually think religion is "stupid" in the literal sense, but it is an illogical system of beliefs that begin for logical reasons when you consider the earliest beliefs of a culture and trace their evolution as a religion.

In Mesoamerican cultures, the god Quetzalcoatl was considered to be a christ-like figure. He was predicted to return; was the son of the primary deities; tempted by the evils of Tezcatlipoca; etc. Quetzalcoatl dominated Mesoamerican culture prior to the Spanish Conquest in the same way that Jesus and Mohammed dominate contemporary cultures. Rulers make attempts to identify with figures like this in order to motivate public opinion.

If others of the thread are interested, we can look further at ancient religions to draw comparissons and contrasts to contemporary religions and further look for the "stupidity." But bear in mind that by "stupid," I'll only agree to the colloquial definition of "illogical."

Hi

As an astronmy/mahts major, I have to say even more stupid than religion is cosmlology (astrophysical cosmology). In order to keep the theory of the Big bang true many exotic particles have been invented like dark matter, dark energy and even anti-gravity. Now all of these are used as proofs of the Big Bang theory, but here we run into a nice circular argument because the proof of all these particles is they need to be there because the Big Bang did happen.
See also attached copy of www.cosmologystatement.org

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

If you want to sign this statement , please click here

Signed:
(Institutions for identification only)
Highlighted names are linked to related web pages

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA) ................................................. 10
Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)
Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France) ........................ 20
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA) .................................................. .................. 30
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

New signers of the Open letter since publication

Scientists and Engineers

Garth A Barber, independent researcher, UK
Martin John Baker, Loretto School Musselburgh, UK
Peter J Carroll, Psychonaut Institute, UK
Roger Y. Gouin, Ecole Superieure d'Electricite, France
John Murray, Sunyata Composite Ltd, UK
Jonathan Chambers, University of Sheffield, UK .................................................. ............... 40
Michel A. Duguay, Laval University, Canada
Qi Pan, Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, UK
Fred Rost, University of NSW (Emeritus), Australia
Louis Hissink, Consulting Geologist, Australia
Hetu Sheth, Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, India
Lassi Hyvärinen, IBM(Ret), France
Max Whisson, University of Melbourne, Australia
R.S.Griffiths, CADAS, UK
Adolf Muenker, Brane Industries, USA
Emre Isik Akdeniz University Turkey .................................. 50
Felipe de Oliveira Alves, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud, Service d'Astrophysique, CEA, France
Kim George, Curtin University of Technology, Australia
Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research, USA
Doneley Watson, IBM (ret.), USA
Fred Alan Wolf, Have Brains / Will Travel, USA
Robert Wood, IEEE, Canada
D. W. Harris, L-3 Communications, USA
Eugene Sittampalam, Engineering consultant, Sri Lanka
Joseph.B. Krieger, Brooklyn College, CUNY, USA .................................................. .......... 60
Pablo Vasquez, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA
Peter F. Richiuso, NASA, KSC, USA
Roger A. Rydin, University of Virginia (Emeritus), USA
Stefan Rydstrom, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Sylvan J. Hotch, The MITRE Corporation (Retired), USA
Thomas R. Love, CSU Dominguez Hills, USA
Andrew Coles, Embedded Systems, USA
Eit Gaastra, infinite universe researcher, The Netherlands
Franco Selleri, Università di Bari, Dipartimento di Fisica, Italy
Gerald Pease, The Aerospace Corporation, USA .................................................. ............ 70
S.N. Arteha, Space Research Institute, Russia
Miroslaw Kozlowski, Warsaw University (emeritus), Poland
John Hartnett, School of Physics, University of Western Australia, Australia
Robert Zubrin, Pioneer Astronautics, USA
Tibor Gasparik, SUNY at Stony Brook, USA
Alexandre Losev, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria
Henry Hall, University of Manchester, UK
José da Silva, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Markus Rohner, Griesser AG, Switzerland
William C. Mitchell, Institute for Advanced Cosmological Studies, USA ............................. 80
Aurea Garcia-Rissmann, UFSC, Brazil
Cristian R. Ghezzi, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil
Daniel Nicolato Epitácio Pereira, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Gregory M. Salyards, US Naval Sea Systems Command (ret.), USA
Joseph A. Rybczyk, Independent Researcher, USA
Luiz Carlos Jafelice, Federal University of the Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil
Michael Sosteric, Athabasca University, Canada
Steven Langley Guy, University of Elizabeth (Physics Department), Australia
Robert Fritzius, Shade Tree Physics, USA
Irineu Gomes Varella, Escola Municipal de Astrofísica, Brazil ............................................... 90
Luiz Carlos Barbosa, Unicamp, Brazil
Mauro Cosentino, University of São Paulo, Brazil
Moacir Lacerda, Univeersidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil
Roberto Assumpcao, PUC Minas, Brazil
Roberto Lopes Parra, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Ronaldo Junio Camppos Batista, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Ermenegildo Caccese, University of Basilicata, Italy
Felipe Sofia Zanuzzo, Federal University of São Carlos, Brazil
Edival de Morais, Sociedade Brasileira de Física, Brazil
Graham Coupe, KAZ Technology Services, Australia .................................................. ..... 100
Richard Wayte, independent researcher, UK
Tom Walther, Southern Cross University Australia , Australia
Antonio Cleiton, Laboratório de Sistemas Complexos - UFPI, Brazil
Sergey Karpov, L.V.Kirensky Institute of Physics Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Wagner Patrick Junqueira de Souza Coelho Nicácio, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Sokolov Vladimir, Special Astrophysical Observatory of RAS, Russia
Edwin G. Schasteen, TAP-TEN Research Foundation International, USA
Gerry Zeitlin, openseti.org, USA
Henry H. Bauer, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, USA
Yasha Fard,H.R. Cosmology Institute, Canada .................................................. ................ 110
Gordon Petrie, High Altitude Observatory, NCAR, USA,
Jose B. Almeida, University of Minho, Portugal,
G.Srinivasan, Independent_Researcher, India,
David Blackford, Independent_Researcher, UK
Henry Reynolds, UC Santa Cruz, USA,
Alberto Bolognesi, Independent Researcher, Italy
Paramahamsa Tewari, Nuclear Power Corporation (ret.),India
Jouko Seppänen, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland,
Dr. Robert Bennett, Kolbe Center, USA,
Hilton Ratcliffe, Astronomical Society of South Africa, South Africa ....................................... 120
Roberto Caimmi, Astronomy Department, Padua University, Italy
Tobias Keller, ETH (SFIT) Zurich, Earth Sciences, Switzerland,
Deborah Foch, Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence, USA,
Cristiane Ribeiro Bernardes, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
Eric Blievernicht. TRW, USA
Arkadiusz Jadczyk, International Institute of Mathematical Physics, Lithuania
DEAN L MAMAS, Independent Researcher, USA
Jean de Pontcharra, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, France
Gerardus D. Bouw, Baldwin-Wallace College, USA
Harold E. Puthoff, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, USA. .......................................... 130
Nainan. K. Varghese, Independent Researcher, India,
Andrew Kulikovsky, Independent Researcher, Australia
Alan Rees, Independent Researcher, Sweden
Wieslaw Sztumski, Silesian University, Poland
Lars Wåhlin,Colutron Research Corporation,USA
Udayan Chakravarty, Independent Researcher, India
Georg Gane, Independent Researcher, Germany
Robin Whittle, Independent Researcher, Australi,
Riccardo Scarpa, European Southern Observatory, Italy,
Olivier Marco, European Southern Observatory, France .................................................. 140
Joseph Garcia, International Radiation Protection, Germany,
Josef Lutz, Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany,
Nigel Edwards, Independent Researcher, Australia
Hermann Dürkop, Nabla Systemberatung, Germany,
Klaus Fischer, Universität Trier, Germany,
Dieter Schumacher, Independent Researcher, Germany
Rudolf Kiesslinger, Independent Researcher, Germany
Werner Holzmüller, University Leipzig, Germany
Gerd Schulte, Independent Researcher, Germany
Stuart Eves, Independent Researcher, UK .................................................. .................. 150
Sol Aisenberg, International Technology Group, USA
Hartmut Warm, Independent Researcher, Germany
Richard Gancarczyk, University of Nottingham, UK
Steve Humphry, Murdoch University, Australia
Alberto Bolognesi, Università di Perugia, Italy
Aaron Hill, Independent Researcher, USA,
Daniele Carosati, Armenzano Observatory, Italy
Brendan Dean, H.R. Cosmology Institute, Canada
W. Jim Jastrzebski, Warsaw University, Poland
Hans-Dieter Radecke, Independent Researcher, Germany .............................................. 160
Gero Rupprecht, European Southern Observatory, Germany
Rainer Herrmann TEWS-Elektronik Germany
Mawell P Davis Independent Researcher New Zealand
Felix Pharand University of Montreal Canada
Gordon E. Mackay Independent Researcher USA
Jerry Bergman Northwest State University USA
Tibor Gasparik SUNY at Stony Brook USA
Rei Gunn University of Nantucket USA
Jan Mugele Independent Researcher Germany
Jorge Ales Corona Independent Researcher Spain .................................................. ..... 170
Dave Sagar Independent Researcher USA
Benjamin I. Iglesias Independent Researcher Spain
Alper Kozan Independent Researcher Turkey
Sinan Alis Eyuboglu Twin Observatories Turkey
Esat Rennan Pekünlü University of EGE Turkey
Andrew Rigg Independent Researcher Australia
Anne M. Hofmeister Washington U. USA
Thomas Riedel Independent researcher Denmark
Quentin Foreman IEEE New Zealand
Robert Martinek McMaster University Canada .................................................. ............. 180
Marc Berndl University of Toronto Canada
Y. P. Varshni University of Ottawa Canada
Helen Workman Independent researcher Canada
Bob Criss Washington University USA
Richard Tobey Independent researcher USA
Steve McMahon Independent researcher USA
Eugene Savov, Independent researcher, Bulgaria
Sol Aisenberg, International Technology Group, USA
Morris Anderson, Independent researcher, USA
Paul LaViolette, The Starburst Foundation, U.S.A. .................................................. .......... 190
Lars Woldseth, Independent researcher, Norway
Robert L. Brueck, Independent researcher, USA
Seetesh Pandé, Universite Claude Bernard, Lyon France
TAHIR MAQSOOD, PSA, PAKISTAN
Mario Cosentino, Independent researcher, France
Paul Richard Price, Independent researcher, United States
José M?df; Cat Casanovas, Independent researcher, Spain
Hartmut Traunmüller, University of Stockholm, Sweden
Ott Köstner, Independent researcher, Estonia
Ethan Skyler, Independent researcher, USA .................................................. .............. 200
Bozidar Kornic, Independent researcher, USA
William F. Hamilton, Independent researcher, U.S.A.
Joel Morrison, Independent researcher, USA
Nico F. Benschop, Amspade Research, Netherlands
Aaron Blake, USAF, USA
Charles Sven, Independent Researcher, USA
Frederico V. F., Lima Universidade de Sao Paulo, Brazil
Gabriele Manzotti, Independent Researcher, Italy
Robert O. Myers, ROM Technologies, USA
James R. Frass, Independent Researcher, Canada .................................................. .............. 210
Philip Lilien, Independent Researcher, USA
M. Ross Fergus, University of Memphis, USA
Arnold Wittkamp, Independent Researcher, Netherlands
Sonu Bhaskar, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, India
Herbert J. Spencer, Independent Researcher, Canada
Andrei Kirilyuk, Institute of Metal Physics of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Ukraine
Christian Jooss, Institut fuer Materialphysik, University of Goettingen, Germany
Sonu Bhaskar, BCISR, India
Dimi Chakalov, Independent Researcher, Bulgaria
Herb Doughty, Independent Researcher, USA .................................................. ............ 220
Robert F. Beck, Independent Researcher, UK
Ana Cristina Oliveira, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil
John Wey, Idaho National Laboratory, USA
Jorge Francisco Maldonado Serrano, UIS, Colombia
Pasquale Galianni, Dipartimento di Fisica Università di Lecce, Italy
Tuomo Suntola, Independent Researcher, Finland
Martín López-Corredoira, Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, Spain
Michael A. Ivanov, Belarus State University of Informatics and Radioelectronics, Belarus
Richard Hillgrove, Independent Researcher, New Zealand .............................................. 229

Sure doesn't sound like the YHVH I know.. you're mixing in some of that hermetic philosophy, which actually makes sense, with your irrational beliefs :)

All I know about Hermes Trismestigus is that he knew everything between earth and heaven. The Bible is like every other thing in the universe, people experience and understand it differently, since people are different... that's why you don't recognize my view of "Jehova".

Incidently, I read somewhere that the only pronunciation of "YHVH" that is more likely than others to be wrong, is "Jehovah" :) the guy misread "YHVH" with "(Eloha)" under it, to mean that the vowels in YHVH were the same as in Eloha... or something very close to this, anyway, I read this long ago. I think Yaweh is a safer bet...

But anyway, "your view" of the entity in question i find pretty valid... It just isn't the guy written about in the bible, is all :) I think you'd like Hermetic Philosophy, though... legend is that Abraham was his disciple.

I feel certain enough that most christians (having been brought up as one) are complete idiots. They seem absolute certain that this bible is the truth. Religion so far seems to not want to go forward. Religion is already set in stone.

Not all religions have the contradictions that mainstream Christianity and Judaism have. People want to have faith, and that's not a terrible thing. But they can be misled by paradoxical faiths from the Middle East such as Christianity and Judaism.

It is a mere fact and not an opinion and very inevitable that there are people who joined religious organizations because of stupidities.

It is a mere fact and not an opinion and very inevitable that there are people who joined religious organizations because of stupidities.
*************
M*W: Like you?

*************
M*W: Like you?
No. But like you.

well maybe, but i'm not part of an organisation, just a belief system based on 1 presupposition: There us a God.
And your believe system is very similar and also unprovable
There is no God
You prove my presupossed idea false, and I will do the same to yours.

No. But like you."

You said, "It is a mere fact and not an opinion and very inevitable that there are people who joined religious organizations because of stupidities.
*************
M*W: But you lie once again. It is a fact and not an opinion that I don't belong to any religious organization, stupid or not. I am adamantly opposed to religion because of its stupidities. I am adamantly opposed to christians due to their stupidities as well.

*************
M*W: But you lie once again. It is a fact and not an opinion that I don't belong to any religious organization, stupid or not. I am adamantly opposed to religion because of its stupidities. I am adamantly opposed to christians due to their stupidities as well.

Isnt atheism also just a religion that cannot be proven or disproven. A non-scientific belief???

well maybe, but i'm not part of an organisation, just a belief system based on 1 presupposition: There us a God.
And your believe system is very similar and also unprovable
There is no God
You prove my presupossed idea false, and I will do the same to yours.

My post when I wrote it had nothing to do with wether a creator existed or not. I'm agnostic which means I don't believe in the existence or the non-existence of god, which I believe is the only sensible way to look at it. But anyway, my post had to do with the stupidity of religion. In the 21st century religion is more exposed than ever on it's stupidity and distorted view of the creator IF there is one.